Socialist Sees Truth -- for 17 Seconds

John Stossel reports that rent control -- a cause leftists embrace as steadfastly and baselessly as Trump does tariffs -- recently experienced a setback in St. Paul, Minnesota:

So what's happening now in St. Paul, four years after its clueless politicians imposed strict rent control?

There was so little new construction that the politicians rolled most rent control back.

This follows as the predictable climax to the earlier part of his column, where Stossel recounts why rent control fails.

Based on how many times this "experiment" has been run with unambiguous results and the simplicity of the economic laws at play, one would imagine that rent control does not work would fall into the realm of common sense.

Except that -- as Stossel demonstrates in amusing fashion even if he doesn't make the point explicit -- altruism unfortunately (albeit wrongly) holds that position and displaces the plain truth in the event of a conflict:

At least St. Paul has a "Twin City," Minneapolis, so frustrated builders could move just a few blocks and build something there. They did just that. Construction increased there.

Minneapolis politicians had also voted for rent control, but they were wary about imposing it. That was smart, since new housing collapsed in St. Paul.

But Minneapolis City Council member Aisha Chughtai was unconvinced. She wants more rent control, telling me, "You don't have a city" if people "can't afford to live there."

I pushed back: "The way you have a city is if people build apartments and houses. That's what eventually brings the price down ... Builders still build in Minneapolis -- building permits were up ... But in St. Paul, they're down 60% because of rent control! You're not going to get more apartments by pushing this."

Her response was something new for me after 50 years interviewing people: 17 seconds of silence! Finally, she said: "Guaranteeing housing for people and making sure that they can stay in their homes matters more than anything else."

Ayn Rand, who argued both that altruism is immoral and that capitalism is a moral system, would have felt vindicated by the socialist stopping dead in her tracks at that moment of clarity, and then reaching for what she viewed as a get-out-of-jail-free card -- namely that a profession of concern for others is a moral trump card that supersedes any concern with facts.

Until Rand's identification of the nature of capitalism and its moral defense become much more widely known, politicians like Chughtai will feel free to ignore obvious economic truths in the service of their immoral and impractical causes.

-- CAV

Lobbying the Quacks

Is a story a nothingburger if mystery meat is involved?

Based on a story about the corporate sponsorships behind the MAHA Summit in Washington next week, we're about to find out.

Politico reports (HT: Jasmine Nisar):

Walmart, America's biggest retailer and a leading purveyor of the ultraprocessed [sic] foods MAHA decries, is among the sponsors. So are two artificial intelligence giants, OpenAI and Anthropic, whose chief executives recently asked Washington to regulate them in order to prevent their tools from wiping out humanity.

In exchange, they'll get to attend a private dinner with summit speakers, which include Health and Human Services Department officials. Other sponsors are less well known, but also have interests before Kennedy's health department, including makers of psychedelic drugs, diagnostics technologies and peptides that need government approval.

We can borrow a phrase from Faye Flam to reflect the conventional view of the above as tainted by the influence of ... industr[y].

The conventional view is half-wrong and half-right, but everything bad about lobbying is a direct result of the government improperly interfering with markets via regulation.

First, here's where Flam and many, many others go wrong:

Honest companies facing government regulation sometimes have no choice but to lobby just to survive, as Ayn Rand once argued of the railroads:

The best illustration of the general confusion on the subject of business and government can be found in [Stewart] Holbrook's The Story of American Railroads. On page 231, Mr. Holbrook writes:

Almost from the first, too, the railroads had to undergo the harassments of politicians and their catchpoles, or to pay blackmail in one way or another. The method was almost sure-fire; the politico, usually a member of a state legislature, thought up some law or regulation that would be costly or awkward to the railroads in his state. He then put this into the form of a bill, talked loudly about it, about how it must pass if the sovereign people were to be protected against the monster railroad, and then waited for some hireling of the railroad to dissuade him by a method as old as man. There is record of as many as thirty-five bills that would harass railroads being introduced at one sitting of one legislature.

And the same Mr. Holbrook in the same book just four pages later (pages 235-236) writes:

In short, by 1870, to pick an arbitrary date, railroads had become, as only too many orators of the day pointed out, a law unto themselves. They had bought United States senators and congressmen, just as they bought rails and locomotives -- with cash. They owned whole legislatures, and often the state courts .... To call the roads of 1870 corrupt is none too strong a term.

The connection between these two statements and the conclusion to be drawn from them has, apparently, never occurred to Mr. Holbrook. It is the railroads that he blames and calls "corrupt." Yet what could the railroads do, except try to "own whole legislatures," if these legislatures held the power of life or death over them? What could the railroads do, except resort to bribery, if they wished to exist at all? Who was to blame and who was "corrupt" -- the businessmen who had to pay "protection money" for the right to remain in business -- or the politicians who held the power to sell that right? (from "Notes on the History of American Free Enterprise," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand) [bold added]

It is wrong to tar a business for lobbying, completely devoid of context.

And when is it right? (And where is the conventional wisdom half-right?)

Any dishonest enterprise hoping to gain the appearance of legitimacy by obtaining a government imprimatur via lobbying does deserve the blame, from those that wish to sell nostrums -- like many sponsors at this "summit" obviously hope to do -- all the way up to regulatory capture.

As the sponsorship of Walmart indicates, there will be mixed cases. This is also unsurprising. So many American businessmen are pragmatists that they will not turn down the opportunity to make money off of fools if it is legal to do so.

None of the above is particularly newsworthy, but there is an interesting wrinkle: Until a crank was appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, a huckster had to hope for some kind of workaround to being held up to scientific standards. That is, he needed the government to help him pass as a legitimate actor. Now, those standards are being actively undermined. For a time, "peptide" pushers may well gain an unearned patina of legitimacy by courting the likes of Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

But just as professional medical associations are calling into question recent changes in the CDC's vaccine recommendations, so will others notice what is going on, and, unless sound standards return (or the government forces people to accept its garbage -- See the field of nutrition.) the value of lobbying the government in that area may well decline.

-- CAV

Yes. I Still Ignore Gov't. Dietary Advice.

Back in January, Faye Flam wrote one of the better assessments of the latest round of government dietary advice: a mess [but] still better.

What I like about this assessment is that it neither hinges on the alleged credibility of the crank who serves as Secretary of Health and Human Services, nor ignores the issue altogether.

Flam acknowledges that nutrition is a contentious field and that such guidelines are distorted by politics -- while also doing a good job of putting the change in a full historic and scientific context:

The new US dietary guidelines are distorted by politics and tainted by the influence of the meat and dairy industries -- but they may still improve Americans' health because they reverse previous nutrition standards that were themselves politicized and unduly influenced by the sugar industry.

The biggest change is a clear-cut recommendation to avoid added sugar and junk food. While nutrition is a contentious field, there's a rare consensus that eating too much sugar is harmful to our health.

And, in another tectonic shift, it's now recommended that Americans eat "full-fat" dairy products instead of fat-free versions. That recommendation is more controversial, but it's consistent with the results of recent studies showing that full-fat dairy may benefit some people by cutting the risk of diabetes and helping with weight control. [bold added]

That's the good news, such as it is, and we aren't just taking the word of Bobby Kennedy, Jr. or one of his lackeys.

This is good, not just because Kennedy has no relevant training, but also because he is dishonest:

[Pediatric endocrinologist Robert] Lustig was initially part of the advisory panel behind the new recommendations but quit after two days, he told me, because Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to cherry-pick which papers the panel was allowed to consider. Despite his concern about political meddling, Lustig agreed with the recommendation to limit sugar and highly processed foods and endorsed full-fat dairy products over fat-free ones. [bold added]

In other words, unlike the case with vaccination, affected Americans are somewhat fortunate that Kennedy happens to favor less-bad advice than before. That fact notwithstanding, there is no reason whatsoever to look to government guidelines if one wants nutritional advice, particularly today.

-- CAV

P.S. An interesting thing I learned about from Flam's piece is a phenomenon called healthy user bias:

Today, scientists know much more about food chemistry, but the field is still hampered by what researchers call healthy user bias. If you tell people not to eat full-fat cheese, meat or eggs, those most likely to follow that advice are also more likely to abstain from smoking, be more affluent, and have better access to health care. As a result, rule followers may appear healthier not because of the rules but in spite of them. [link in original, bold added]

It's part of the answer to the implicit challenge of how can you argue with someone so ripped that Kennedy's flaunting of his physique seems to raise -- or to anyone else peddling kookiness who seems to have "results."

Four Neat Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Alison Green asked readers for examples of how their jobs followed them home recently and posted her favorites at Ask a Manager. Best of the bunch for me is the following example:

Back in the 90s, I volunteered at a zoo and I still scramble eggs the way the raven preferred them. [bold added]

Yes. I searched the comments in vain for how the raven preferred scrambled eggs, but only found a cute short poem in the style of "The Raven."

2. For fans of my "smart" car updates, I have found two lists that might come in handy the next time you need to buy a car. Both "Things That Annoy Me About Cars in 2026" and the "EV Stupidity Checklist" surprised even me with the ridiculous stunts automakers are pulling these days.

My favorite bit comes from the former, and reminds me of my annoyance with all the cute (but stupid) takes on the humble shower controller I encounter seemingly every time I stay in a hotel:

These door handle designs got so bad and unsafe in emergencies, that the Chinese government is mandating "the outside of every passenger door except the boot, to have a recessed space measuring no smaller than 6cm (2 in) by 2cm by 2.5cm to allow access to the handle" as of Jan 1st 2027.

Not only are these unconventional door handles awkward to use for passengers who are unfamiliar with your car - I got very tired of explaining how to open the door to anyone that got into my Tesla when I owned one - they are difficult for people with wrist, finger or other hand issues compared to a classic door handle.

We solved door handles 60 years ago, why are we fucking around with them!? [bold added]

Amen.

3. Hacker News gem of the day: the Wikipedia entry on wax motors, which use the expansion of wax during melting to do work. Here's an excerpt on one application:

Greenhouse Vents

Wax motors are widely used to operate the temperature regulating vents of greenhouses.

In this application, as the ambient temperature within the greenhouse increases, the wax melts, activating the plunger and opening the vents. When the greenhouse temperature has cooled sufficiently, the wax cools and solidifies, allowing the vents to close again.

The technology seems to be under a century old, albeit common in applications most people -- myself included until now -- are unaware of. The embedded video below is a time lapse of greenhouse vents opening via such a motor.

4. I don't play tennis, and you don't need to, either to be able to enjoy the creativity in design and setting on display in this pictorial of "The 30 Most Beautiful Tennis Courts Around the World at Architectural Digest"

-- CAV

Taking the Guessing out of Etiquette

Aside from the good advice, one of the things I like best about Miss Manners is how well she cuts through the fog to identify an issue, and then communicates that issue and the attendant etiquette effectively.

A good example of this is her reply to a self-proclaimed "accent nerd" who wonders if there is a polite way to ask someone Where are you from?

(I can both cringe and imagine a younger version of myself doing something like this.)

There are, of course, numerous contexts within an existing conversation in which that sort of question is a natural and good part of the flow. But also, in today's ridiculous, politics-saturated culture, it could be easy to get sidetracked. Both facts make this a tricky question, but Miss Manners explains quite well why it's a bad lead for the questioner, concluding as follows:

There are less intrusive ways to get to know people, but you have led Miss Manners to believe that friendship, or even acquaintanceship, is not your objective; rather, it is playing your little guessing game. Please stop.

Ouch!

She builds up to this well, but the sting will serve the good purpose here of advising how best to treat other people like human beings, and alerting the innocent of how easy it can be to send the wrong message about themselves.

-- CAV

GOP Stands by While Trump Sabotages Them

At The Hill, an alarmed Republican bemoans Trump's latest unforced error: His ridiculous trade war with Canada.

Surprisingly enough (for Trump, at least), slapping huge import taxes on the biggest international trading partner of many "red" states is harming their economies in ways voters will probably notice, and correctly blame on Trump and his party:

A recent assessment by the Visual Capitalist highlights 23 states that get most of their imports from Canada. Among the states with closely watched elections are Maine, which gets 68.7 percent of it imports from Canada, Alaska (40.7 percent), Minnesota (33.5 percent), Iowa (26.6 percent), and Ohio (18.7 percent).

But trade is a two-way street. It's not just the increased costs -- up to 50 percent more -- U.S. companies, small businesses (like farms) and consumers must pay for Canadian imports. There are also U.S.-made products and services that Canadians may decide not to buy from the United States because the of the tariffs Canada, in response, imposed on imports from the United States. The Visual Capitalist's newly released map outlines the states hardest hit.

The biggest state exporters to Canada are Ohio (exporting $2.3 billion a year) and Pennsylvania ($1.8 billion). Are there important elections in those states that could make the difference in whether Republicans retain the House of Representatives and the Senate? [bold added]

The piece will make gory reading for those of Trump's partisans who don't just assume Trump is playing 4-D chess, and understand why tariffs are a Bad Idea and why swing voters whose livelihoods are affected are going to live up to their name and swing away from their party.

But what the author takes to be the icing on the cake is the following paragraph:

The most puzzling part is that if Trump were determined to pick a trade fight with Canada, he could have easily waited until after November. He chose to do it weeks away from a critical election, which makes you wonder if the conspiracy theorists are right. [bold added]

Yes, the President who still, somehow, commands so much loyalty is a real idiot: Wouldn't it be nice if someone did something about it before the voters do?

And that question -- my question -- as an independent voter fuming about the Trump Party -- is the real icing on the cake.

I seem to recall that Congress could reassert its own constitutional authority over tariffs. Why hasn't it? And if I'm wrong, or there isn't time to do this ahead of the midterms, why not run an the premise of ending this mad effing around with everyone's costs, while insulting their intelligence?

I don't have an answer, but while this column doesn't fall into the disgusting line of sycophantic puff pieces so many conservatives are guilty of these days, it still fails to hold Trump's enablers in the party accountable.

Trump is: obsessed with tariffs, old and set in his ways, insane for all practical purposes, and floating about in an amniotic sac of constant praise and insulation from things he really needs to know.

The people who built that little bubble -- by letting him have his way all the time, and appointing crackpot "advisors" instead of rational adults to his cabinet -- will have reaped what they sowed if the scenario outlined by Merrill Matthews pans out.

And, unless they change course, by starting to restrain this lunatic, they will have deserved an electoral bloodbath and helped the Democrats win Congress.

-- CAV

The American Spectator: High on Its Own Supply?

One of the most eye-opening and disappointing aspects of the rise of Donald Trump has been the apparent decline of conservative journalism.

I say apparent because I have to allow for the possibility that, until that john came along, I just wasn't good at recognizing prostitutes when I saw them. That could, in a way, speak well of me, but all blindness has a price.

Case in point: A recent puff piece in The American Spectator, a publication that a quick search of my archives shows I have referenced at least 16 times over the years.

Its title? "RFK Jr. Wows the GOP Like Jeane Kirkpatrick Did in 1984" (The equally embarrassing subtitle doubles down: "In Dallas, Kennedy reprises a 1984 convention theme: a lifelong Democrat explaining why he crossed the aisle.")

I understand that the founder of this conservative organ is Catholic, and that, accordingly, it espouses social conservative positions I don't agree with, such as opposition to abortion.

I can respect such a stand in the sense that, if an unborn fetus really is human, then abortion should be outlawed as murder.

This post isn't about abortion, but the fact that they hold such a position is important.

Back to the piece...

I was young, and not that engaged in politics during the Reagan Administration. Beyond anti-communist, I don't have a solid grasp of Jeane Kirkpatrick's foreign policy positions, but I suspect they were at least okay for the time, and that her heart was in the right place.

I estimate that she left her party for basically the right reason and did what the Overton Window at the time -- nudged by Reagan -- allowed her to do to stand up to the Soviet Union.

However fair my estimate, she was no turncoat, and her adopted party didn't whitewash anything from her past.

How times have changed!

Get a load of this opening:

Thursday evening at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. repeatedly brought the GOP midterm convention audience to their feet with a speech reminiscent of Jeane Kirkpatrick's speech at the 1984 Republican National Convention. Like Kirkpatrick, RFK Jr. noted his Democratic Party roots. Like Kirkpatrick, RFK Jr. emphasized the differences between the modern Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of a bygone era. RFK Jr. was a Democrat chosen by Republican President Donald Trump to "make America healthy again," while in 1981, Kirkpatrick was a Democrat chosen by Republican President Ronald Reagan to help him win the Cold War.

RFK Jr. stated that neither his father (Robert F. Kennedy) nor his uncle (John F. Kennedy) would recognize today's Democrats. Jeane Kirkpatrick in 1984 noted that neither Harry Truman, JFK, nor Lyndon Johnson would recognize the Democrats who gathered that year in San Francisco, whom she labeled the "blame America first crowd." [bold added]

I'll skip the gooey, pus-like filler of this disgusting piece of sycophancy, but go for it if you're into spiritual masochism...

The conclusion is rich:

Just as Ronald Reagan was in 1984, according to Kirkpatrick, making America safer and more secure, so Donald Trump today is, according to RFK Jr., making America healthy again and needs a Republican-controlled Congress to complete this important work. [bold added]

This is all being said about a person well-known as an anti-vaccine crank, among a group of people who -- until five minutes ago -- saw vaccination as common sense, and regarded anti-vaxxers as dumb hippies who belonged in California.

Kennedy must have enjoyed speaking of people not recognizing their own parties, because I am sure Reagan wouldn't have recognized the one he was speaking to.

Bobby Kennedy is an anti-vaccine crank who deserves to be known as a baby killer, especially after his 2019 exploits in Samoa, which led to a measles outbreak that killed 85, most of whom were children under five.

This piece of refuse is whom Republicans and The Spectator lionize? That rag has an entire section of supposedly "pro-life" writing. Have they changed their minds about the value of human life, however they define it? Or is that profession of concern about human life as hollow a show of "virtue-signalling" as Kennedy's professed concern for our health?

-- CAV